Assessment of Alcohol Exposure From Alcohol-Based Disinfectants Among Premature Infants in Neonatal Incubators in Japan | Pediatrics | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Elevated Alcohol Concentration in Infants and the Air of Incubators and Alcohol-Based Disinfectant Practice (ABD-PRAC)
Elevated Alcohol Concentration in Infants and the Air of Incubators and Alcohol-Based Disinfectant Practice (ABD-PRAC)

A, Blood alcohol concentration. Median blood alcohol concentrations pre–ABD-PRAC were 7.0 (IQR, 5.4-9.3) mg/dL (41 samples analyzed from 17 infants); post–ABD-PRAC, 4.2 (IQR, 2.5-7.2) mg/dL (27 samples analyzed from 11 infants); and control cord blood samples, 0.2 (IQR, 0.1-0.4) mg/dL (3 samples analyzed from 3 infants). Control cord blood was only exposed to laboratory air at serum separation and storing process. The boxes indicate IQR (25th and 75th percentiles); horizontal lines within boxes indicate mean; error bars indicate 1.5 × IQR. B, Time course of the blood alcohol concentrations of infants. Solid lines show the time course of blood alcohol concentration in individual premature infants according to the corrected gestational ages. Dots indicate the points of time when the blood samples were drawn. Blood alcohol concentrations pre–ABD-PRAC obtained in 39 samples from 15 donors; concentrations post–ABD-PRAC obtained in 25 samples from 9 donors. Blood samples obtained more than once from the same donors were analyzed. C, Representative data of weekly kinetics (solid line) and time-weighted average (TWA) (horizontal dashed line) of evaporated alcohol concentration inside neonatal incubators detected using real-time volatile organic compound sensors. The air of incubators, which accommodated infants born at 27 weeks (pre–ABD-PRAC) and 25 weeks (post–ABD-PRAC) of gestational age, was analyzed. The analysis was conducted on day 1 (pre–ABD-PRAC) and day 3 (post–ABD-PRAC) after birth, and the time-weighted average values were 41.9 ppm (pre–ABD-PRAC) and 18.2 ppm (post–ABD-PRAC). D, TWA alcohol concentrations pre–ABD-PRAC (total of 510 days analyzed) were 13.2 (IQR, 8.9-19.4) ppm during nighttime (6:00 pm-6:00 am) and 23.6 (IQR, 15.9-36.5) ppm during daytime (6:00 am-6:00 pm). Post–ABD-PRAC (total of 378 days analyzed) concentrations were 5.7 (IQR, 3.6-9.7) ppm during nighttime and 9.4 (IQR, 6.0-16.0) ppm during daytime. The boxes indicate IQR (25th and 75th percentiles); horizontal lines within boxes indicate mean; error bars indicate 1.5 × IQR; circles beyond the error bar indicate values outside the range.

Figure 2.  Association of Alcohol-Based Disinfectant Practice (ABD-PRAC) With Blood Alcohol Concentrations According to Corrected Gestational Age
Association of Alcohol-Based Disinfectant Practice (ABD-PRAC) With Blood Alcohol Concentrations According to Corrected Gestational Age

A, Linear mixed-effect models adjusted for respiratory support and blood sampling methods were used in determination of blood alcohol concentration in premature infants. B, Time-weighted average (TWA) alcohol concentration in the air of incubators during daytime. C, Coefficient of variation of alcohol concentration during daytime. Linear regression models adjusted for respiratory support and blood sampling methods were used for daytime concentration analysis (B and C). Solid lines indicate regression lines, representing the least-square means; shaded areas indicate the 95% CIs.

Table 1.  Baseline Characteristics of Preterm Infants and Samples
Baseline Characteristics of Preterm Infants and Samples
Table 2.  Regression Coefficient of Variables Associated With the Alcohol Concentration in Infant Blood and the Incubator
Regression Coefficient of Variables Associated With the Alcohol Concentration in Infant Blood and the Incubator
Supplement 1.

eMethods 1. Peripheral Blood Collection

eMethods 2. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Peripheral Blood Alcohol Level

eMethods 3. Analysis of Alcohol Concentration in Air

eMethods 4. Video Analysis for Detecting Factors Associated With Increased Evaporated Alcohol in Neonatal Incubators

eFigure 1. Daily Kinetics of Evaporated Alcohol Concentrations in the Incubators

eFigure 2. Factors Associated With the Increase in Evaporated Alcohol in Neonatal Incubators

eFigure 3. Association Between Alcohol Prep and Alcohol-Based Disinfectants and Alcohol Concentrations in Incubators

eFigure 4. Monthly Alcohol Prep Pad Use Pre and Post Introduction of Alcohol-Based Disinfectant Practice

eFigure 5. Association Between Alcohol-Based Disinfectant Practice and Alcohol Concentrations During Day-Time by Corrected Gestational Ages

eFigure 6. Association Between Alcohol-Based Disinfectant Practice and Alcohol Concentrations During Night-Time by Corrected Gestational Ages

eFigure 7. Alcohol Concentration in the Air of Incubators in the Intensive Care Unit of Another Institute

eTable 1. Standardized Regression Coefficient of Variables Affecting the Alcohol Concentration of Infant Blood and the Incubator

eTable 2. Regression Coefficient of Variables Affecting the Concentration of Evaporated Alcohol in the Neonatal Incubator

eTable 3. Standardized Regression Coefficient of Variables Affecting the Concentration of Evaporated Alcohol in the Neonatal Incubator

eTable 4. Target Ion m/z

eTable 5. GC-MS Analytical Conditions

1.
Guidelines  WHO; Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee.  WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. World Health Organization; 2009.
2.
Sampah  MES, Hackam  DJ.  Prenatal immunity and influences on necrotizing enterocolitis and associated neonatal disorders.   Front Immunol. 2021;12:650709. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.650709 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Bell  EF, Hintz  SR, Hansen  NI,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Mortality, in-hospital morbidity, care practices, and 2-year outcomes for extremely preterm infants in the US, 2013-2018.   JAMA. 2022;327(3):248-263. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.23580 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
van Vliet  EO, de Kieviet  JF, Oosterlaan  J, van Elburg  RM.  Perinatal infections and neurodevelopmental outcome in very preterm and very low-birth-weight infants: a meta-analysis.   JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(7):662-668. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1199 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Ericson  JE, Popoola  VO, Smith  PB,  et al.  Burden of invasive Staphylococcus aureus infections in hospitalized infants.   JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(12):1105-1111. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2380 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Denny  L, Coles  S, Blitz  R.  Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.   Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(8):515-522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Sokol  RJ, Delaney-Black  V, Nordstrom  B.  Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.   JAMA. 2003;290(22):2996-2999. doi:10.1001/jama.290.22.2996 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Muggli  E, Matthews  H, Penington  A,  et al.  Association between prenatal alcohol exposure and craniofacial shape of children at 12 months of age.   JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(8):771-780. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0778 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Baker  JP.  The incubator and the medical discovery of the premature infant.   J Perinatol. 2000;20(5):321-328. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7200377 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Hsieh  S, Sapkota  A, Wood  R, Bearer  C, Kapoor  S.  Neonatal ethanol exposure from ethanol-based hand sanitisers in isolettes.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103(1):F55-F58. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-311959 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Chu  J, Tong  M, de la Monte  SM.  Chronic ethanol exposure causes mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in immature central nervous system neurons.   Acta Neuropathol. 2007;113(6):659-673. doi:10.1007/s00401-007-0199-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Soleimani  E, Goudarzi  I, Abrari  K, Lashkarbolouki  T.  The combined effects of developmental lead and ethanol exposure on hippocampus dependent spatial learning and memory in rats: role of oxidative stress.   Food Chem Toxicol. 2016;96:263-272. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2016.07.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Bird  CW, Barber  MJ, Post  HR,  et al.  Neonatal ethanol exposure triggers apoptosis in the murine retrosplenial cortex: role of inhibition of NMDA receptor-driven action potential firing.   Neuropharmacology. 2020;162:107837. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.107837 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Clarren  SK, Alvord  EC  Jr, Sumi  SM, Streissguth  AP, Smith  DW.  Brain malformations related to prenatal exposure to ethanol.   J Pediatr. 1978;92(1):64-67. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(78)80072-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Komada  M, Hara  N, Kawachi  S,  et al.  Mechanisms underlying neuro-inflammation and neurodevelopmental toxicity in the mouse neocortex following prenatal exposure to ethanol.   Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):4934. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04289-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Hoyme  HE, Kalberg  WO, Elliott  AJ,  et al.  Updated clinical guidelines for diagnosing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.   Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20154256. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-4256 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wu  CT, Hsia  SH, Chen  CL, Lee  HY.  Acute fatal alcohol intoxication in a 3-day-old neonate.   Pediatr Neonatol. 2017;58(3):278-280. doi:10.1016/j.pedneo.2015.11.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Zaitsu  M, Inada  Y, Tashiro  K,  et al.  Acute alcohol intoxication in a 15-day-old neonate.   Pediatr Int. 2013;55(6):792-794. doi:10.1111/ped.12134 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
US Environmental Protection Agency. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. 2002. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/rfd-final.pdf
20.
Shah  D, Tracy  M.  Skin antisepsis survey in Australia-New Zealand neonatal nurseries.   J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49(7):601-602. doi:10.1111/jpc.12274 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
McCord  H, Fieldhouse  E, El-Naggar  W.  Current practices of antiseptic use in Canadian neonatal intensive care units.   Am J Perinatol. 2019;36(2):141-147. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1661406 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Beekman  K, Steward  D.  Chlorhexidine gluconate utilization for infection prevention in the NICU: a survey of current practice.   Adv Neonatal Care. 2020;20(1):38-47. doi:10.1097/ANC.0000000000000658 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Isopropyl alcohol. Pubchem. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/3776
24.
Ethanol Pubchem. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethanol
25.
Kaufman  DA, Blackman  A, Conaway  MR, Sinkin  RA.  Nonsterile glove use in addition to hand hygiene to prevent late-onset infection in preterm infants: randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(10):909-916. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.953 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Harpin  VA, Rutter  N.  Barrier properties of the newborn infant’s skin.   J Pediatr. 1983;102(3):419-425. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(83)80669-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Kalia  YN, Nonato  LB, Lund  CH, Guy  RH.  Development of skin barrier function in premature infants.   J Invest Dermatol. 1998;111(2):320-326. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1747.1998.00289.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Bueva  A, Guignard  JP.  Renal function in preterm neonates.   Pediatr Res. 1994;36(5):572-577. doi:10.1203/00006450-199411000-00005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Moltu  SJ, Sachse  D, Blakstad  EW,  et al.  Urinary metabolite profiles in premature infants show early postnatal metabolic adaptation and maturation.   Nutrients. 2014;6(5):1913-1930. doi:10.3390/nu6051913 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Allegaert  K, Mian  P, van den Anker  JN.  Developmental pharmacokinetics in neonates: maturational changes and beyond.   Curr Pharm Des. 2017;23(38):5769-5778. doi:10.2174/1381612823666170926121124 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Fraser  C, Harron  K, Dalton  L, Gilbert  R, Oddie  SJ, Study  P; PREVAIL Study.  Variation in infection prevention practices for peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a survey of neonatal units in England and Wales.   PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0204894. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204894 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Datta  MK, Clarke  P.  Current practices in skin antisepsis for central venous catheterisation in UK tertiary-level neonatal units.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93(4):F328. doi:10.1136/adc.2008.137430 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Johnson  J, Bracken  R, Tamma  PD, Aucott  SW, Bearer  C, Milstone  AM.  Trends in chlorhexidine use in US neonatal intensive care units: results from a follow-up national survey.   Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(9):1116-1118. doi:10.1017/ice.2016.125 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Heron  TJ, Faraday  CM, Clarke  P.  The hidden harms of Matching Michigan.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98(5):F466-F467. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-304378 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Sathiyamurthy  S, Banerjee  J, Godambe  SV.  Antiseptic use in the neonatal intensive care unit—a dilemma in clinical practice: an evidence based review.   World J Clin Pediatr. 2016;5(2):159-171. doi:10.5409/wjcp.v5.i2.159 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Chapman  AK, Aucott  SW, Gilmore  MM, Advani  S, Clarke  W, Milstone  AM.  Absorption and tolerability of aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate used for skin antisepsis prior to catheter insertion in preterm neonates.   J Perinatol. 2013;33(10):768-771. doi:10.1038/jp.2013.61 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Cowen  J, Ellis  SH, McAinsh  J.  Absorption of chlorhexidine from the intact skin of newborn infants.   Arch Dis Child. 1979;54(5):379-383. doi:10.1136/adc.54.5.379 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Aggett  PJ, Cooper  LV, Ellis  SH, McAinsh  J.  Percutaneous absorption of chlorhexidine in neonatal cord care.   Arch Dis Child. 1981;56(11):878-880. doi:10.1136/adc.56.11.878 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Chapman  AK, Aucott  SW, Milstone  AM.  Safety of chlorhexidine gluconate used for skin antisepsis in the preterm infant.   J Perinatol. 2012;32(1):4-9. doi:10.1038/jp.2011.148 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Tamma  PD, Aucott  SW, Milstone  AM.  Chlorhexidine use in the neonatal intensive care unit: results from a national survey.   Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(8):846-849. doi:10.1086/655017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Ponnusamy  V, Venkatesh  V, Clarke  P.  Skin antisepsis in the neonate: what should we use?   Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2014;27(3):244-250. doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000064 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Watkins  AM, Keogh  EJ.  Alcohol burns in the neonate.   J Paediatr Child Health. 1992;28(4):306-308. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.1992.tb02673.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Vanzi  V, Pitaro  R.  Skin injuries and chlorhexidine gluconate-based antisepsis in early premature infants: a case report and review of the literature.   J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2018;32(4):341-350. doi:10.1097/JPN.0000000000000334 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Mannan  K, Chow  P, Lissauer  T, Godambe  S.  Mistaken identity of skin cleansing solution leading to extensive chemical burns in an extremely preterm infant.   Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(10):1536-1537. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00376.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Bringué Espuny  X, Soria  X, Solé  E,  et al.  Chlorhexidine-methanol burns in two extreme preterm newborns.   Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27(6):676-678. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2010.01178.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Reynolds  PR, Banerjee  S, Meek  JH.  Alcohol burns in extremely low birthweight infants: still occurring.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(1):F10. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.054338 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Lashkari  HP, Chow  P, Godambe  S.  Aqueous 2% chlorhexidine-induced chemical burns in an extremely premature infant.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012;97(1):F64. doi:10.1136/adc.2011.215145 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Chabrolle  JP, Rossier  A.  Goitre and hypothyroidism in the newborn after cutaneous absorption of iodine.   Arch Dis Child. 1978;53(6):495-498. doi:10.1136/adc.53.6.495 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Aitken  J, Williams  FL.  A systematic review of thyroid dysfunction in preterm neonates exposed to topical iodine.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99(1):F21-F28. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-303799 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Lai  P, Coulson  C, Pothier  DD, Rutka  J.  Chlorhexidine ototoxicity in ear surgery, part 1: review of the literature.   J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;40(6):437-440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Milstone  AM, Bamford  P, Aucott  SW, Tang  N, White  KR, Bearer  CF.  Chlorhexidine inhibits L1 cell adhesion molecule-mediated neurite outgrowth in vitro.   Pediatr Res. 2014;75(1-1):8-13. doi:10.1038/pr.2013.175 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Goldschmidt  P, Cogen  R, Taubman  S.  Cytopathologic effects of chlorhexidine on human cells.   J Periodontol. 1977;48(4):212-215. doi:10.1902/jop.1977.48.4.212 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Doan  L, Piskoun  B, Rosenberg  AD, Blanck  TJ, Phillips  MS, Xu  F.  In vitro antiseptic effects on viability of neuronal and Schwann cells.   Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012;37(2):131-138. doi:10.1097/AAP.0b013e31823cdd96 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Li  SH, Wang  Y, Gao  HB, Zhao  K, Hou  YC, Sun  W.  Experimental study on the toxicity of povidone-iodine solution in brain tissues of rabbits.   Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(9):14863-14870.PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Volpe  JJ.  Brain injury in premature infants: a complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances.   Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(1):110-124. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70294-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Bhutta  AT, Cleves  MA, Casey  PH, Cradock  MM, Anand  KJ.  Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis.   JAMA. 2002;288(6):728-737. doi:10.1001/jama.288.6.728 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Eves  R, Mendonça  M, Baumann  N,  et al.  Association of very preterm birth or very low birth weight with intelligence in adulthood: an individual participant data meta-analysis.   JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(8):e211058. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.1058 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Saigal  S, Day  KL, Van Lieshout  RJ, Schmidt  LA, Morrison  KM, Boyle  MH.  Health, wealth, social integration, and sexuality of extremely low-birth-weight prematurely born adults in the fourth decade of life.   JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(7):678-686. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0289 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Bolk  J, Farooqi  A, Hafström  M, Åden  U, Serenius  F.  Developmental coordination disorder and its association with developmental comorbidities at 6.5 years in apparently healthy children born extremely preterm.   JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(8):765-774. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1394 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Kinney  HC.  The encephalopathy of prematurity: one pediatric neuropathologist’s perspective.   Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2009;16(4):179-190. doi:10.1016/j.spen.2009.09.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Lim  KS, Kam  PC.  Chlorhexidine–pharmacology and clinical applications.   Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008;36(4):502-512. doi:10.1177/0310057X0803600404 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Bashir  MH, Hollingsworth  A, Schwab  D,  et al.  Ex vivo and in vivo evaluation of residual chlorhexidine gluconate on skin following repetitive exposure to saline and wiping with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate/70% isopropyl alcohol pre-operative skin preparations.   J Hosp Infect. 2019;102(3):256-261. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2018.10.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
PubChem. Chlorhexidine. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9552079
64.
Cho  K, Kobayashi  S, Araki  A,  et al; Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group.  Prenatal alcohol exposure and adverse fetal growth restriction: findings from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study.   Pediatr Res. 2022;92(1):291-298. doi:10.1038/s41390-021-01595-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
Pediatrics
February 24, 2023

Assessment of Alcohol Exposure From Alcohol-Based Disinfectants Among Premature Infants in Neonatal Incubators in Japan

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
  • 2Health and Environmental Risk Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
  • 3Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
  • 4Department of Neonatology, Ibaraki Children's Hospital, Mito, Ibaraki, Japan
  • 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
  • 6Department of Child Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e230691. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0691
Key Points

Question  What is the risk of exposure to alcohol-based disinfectants (ABDs), frequently used for infection control, in premature infants in neonatal incubators?

Findings  In this quality improvement study including 28 premature infants in neonatal incubators, alcohol was continuously detected from all 68 blood samples obtained; its concentration was primarily associated with evaporated alcohol from ABDs inside the neonatal incubator. A simple method to reduce alcohol evaporation from ABDs was associated with decreasing the alcohol concentration inside the neonatal incubators and in premature infants.

Meaning  The findings of this study suggest that infants in incubators systemically absorb evaporated alcohol from ABDs and that reducing their exposure may be easily achieved.

Abstract

Importance  The risk of premature infants in neonatal incubators exposed to evaporated alcohol from alcohol-based disinfectants (ABDs) is unknown.

Objective  To assess alcohol concentrations in the peripheral blood of premature infants and neonatal incubators.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A quality improvement study comparing 2 different populations before and after introduction of ABD practice (ABD-PRAC) was conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit of a single tertiary hospital in Japan. Participants included premature infants who were born before 34 weeks of gestational age and received medical care in neonatal incubators. The study consisted of 3 periods: (1) September 1, 2020, to August 1, 2021 (prospective observation of pre–ABD-PRAC, (2) August 2 to August 22, 2021 (introduction of ABD-PRAC to medical staff and parents in the neonatal intensive care unit), and (3) August 23, 2021, to March 31, 2022 (prospective observation of post–ABD-PRAC). No follow-up studies were initiated.

Interventions  An ABD-PRAC that aimed to reduce alcohol evaporation from ABDs inside neonatal incubators was instituted: (1) place alcohol preps in the incubator just before use and remove them from the incubator as soon as possible and (2) withhold placing hands into the incubators until 60 seconds after using ABDs for disinfection (applied only to family members).

Main Outcomes and Measures  Blood alcohol concentration and evaporated alcohol concentrations in neonatal incubators.

Results  Disinfectant practice was assessed among 28 infants during the pre–ABD-PRAC (17 infants [10 girls]; median gestational age at birth, 29.4 [IQR, 26.3-30.3] weeks) and post–ABD-PRAC (11 infants [3 girls]; median gestational age at birth, 30.0 [IQR, 25.3-32.2] weeks) study periods. The median blood alcohol concentration was 7.0 (IQR, 5.4-9.3) mg/dL pre–ABD-PRAC and 4.2 (IQR, 2.5-7.2) mg/dL post–ABD-PRAC. The median evaporated alcohol concentration inside neonatal incubators during pre–ABD-PRAC during the day was 23.6 (IQR, 15.9-36.5) ppm and, at night, was 13.2 (IQR, 8.9-19.4) ppm; during post–ABD-PRAC, the concentration was 9.4 (IQR, 6.0-16.0) ppm during the day and 5.7 (IQR, 3.6-9.7) ppm at night. The introduction of ABD-PRAC at 22 weeks’ corrected gestational age was associated with a lower blood alcohol concentration in premature infants: regression coefficient value, −8.3 (95% CI, −12.0 to −4.7).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this study, alcohol evaporated from ABDs was absorbed by premature infants in neonatal incubators. The findings suggest that introduction of ABD-PRAC was associated with lower alcohol concentrations in neonatal incubators and in the blood of premature infants.

Introduction

Alcohol-based disinfectants (ABDs), which include alcohol hand sanitizers and ABD prep pads (alcohol preps), are commonly used as antiseptics in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).1 The importance of their use for infection control in NICUs has gained increasing attention over the years because premature infants are immunocompromised and are highly vulnerable to microorganisms.2-5 Furthermore, alcohol can cause irreversible brain damage to fetuses, which is known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.6-8

Neonatal incubators, which accommodate infants in warm and humid conditions, play an important role in protecting infants from the invasion of pathogens by providing clean air and have contributed to lowering premature infant mortality.9 In contrast, such confined spaces may have a detrimental effect on infants if there is a noxious volatile organic compound.10 To our knowledge, the level of alcohol exposure in infants in incubators has not been investigated.

To examine whether alcohol evaporated from ABDs inside neonatal incubators is systemically absorbed by premature infants, we measured the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in premature infants and in the air of neonatal incubators. We then conducted a study by introducing a newly designed ABD practice (ABD-PRAC) and evaluated its association with reducing alcohol exposure in premature infants.

Methods
Study Design and Participants

A quality improvement study that followed the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) reporting guideline was conducted in a level 3 NICU with 27 beds in Tsukuba University Hospital (Ibaraki, Japan) from September 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022. Infants were included only if they were born at Tsukuba University Hospital before 34 weeks of gestational age and their care was managed inside neonatal incubators. Two types of neonatal incubators (Incu i and V-2100G; Atom Medical Corp) were used. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents of all recruited infants. Infants with life-threatening general conditions and congenital malformations and those born when volatile organic compound sensors were unavailable were excluded. This study was approved by the ethics committee of Tsukuba University Hospital and other participating institutions.

The study consisted of 3 periods. The first period (September 1, 2020, to August 1, 2021) was the prospective observational study held to survey the baseline of alcohol concentrations in the infants’ blood and in the air of neonatal incubators (pre–ABD-PRAC introduction). In the second period (August 2 to August 22, 2021), we designated 3 weeks to introduce the ABD-PRAC to medical staff and parents in the NICU. In the third period (August 23, 2021, to March 31, 2022), a prospective observational study was held to survey the change of alcohol concentration in the infants’ blood and in the air of neonatal incubators after the introduction of ABD-PRAC in the NICU (post–ABD-PRAC introduction). No samples were obtained during the ABD-PRAC introduction phase, and no individual patient overlapped between the pre–ABD-PRAC and post–ABD-PRAC introduction periods. No follow-up studies were initiated.

Peripheral Blood Collection

Blood samples for alcohol analysis were additionally collected during routine clinical blood sampling (eMethods 1 in Supplement 1). Contamination and evaporation of alcohol from the samples were prevented as much as possible. Samples from infants who received alcohol excipient–containing medications were excluded.

Analysis of Alcohol Concentrations

Static headspace gas chromatography–coupled mass spectrometry was used to analyze alcohol in small volumes of peripheral blood (eMethods 2, eTable 4, eTable 5 in Supplement 1). We adopted real-time volatile organic compound sensors specialized for detecting ethanol (COD-203, New Cosmos Electric Co Ltd) (eMethods 3 in Supplement 1). The following alcohol disinfectants are used in our NICU: alcohol preps containing ethanol, 76.9% to 81.4% (vol/vol), and alcohol hand sanitizers containing ethanol, 83% (vol/vol), with chlorhexidine, 0.2%.

Introduction of ABD-PRAC

The ABD-PRAC was designed to reduce the evaporation of alcohol from ABDs inside the incubators without influencing infection control in the NICU. The ABD-PRAC consisted of the following: (1) place alcohol preps in the incubator just before use and remove them from the incubator as soon as possible and (2) withhold placing hands into the incubators until 60 seconds after using ABDs for disinfection (applied only to family members). The NICU health care professionals were blinded to alcohol concentration levels in the incubators and in the blood of premature infants throughout the study period. To investigate the association between ABD-PRAC and infection control, culture-proven sepsis and the amount of alcohol preps used were recorded.

Statistical Analysis

Blood alcohol concentrations were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Fixed effects were selected based on the independent variables according to the importance of the absorbing site of alcohol (eg, airway and skin) and the nature of alcohol exposure in infants (eg, indirectly with evaporated alcohol or directly with alcohol preps): corrected gestational age (CGA), ABD-PRAC, respiratory support, arterial catheterization, and the interaction between CGA and ABD-PRAC. Intercept and CGA were used as random effects. ABD-PRAC was time-invariant, while the other variables were time-varying. Twenty-two was subtracted from the CGA to use week 22 as the origin. The interaction term CGA × ABD-PRAC was included since alcohol absorption would change per the CGA and may interfere with ABD-PRAC measurement; the need for frequent and intensive medical care using ABDs generally decreases by infantile maturation. Time-weighted average alcohol concentrations in the incubator during day (6:00 am-6:00 pm) and night (6:00 pm-6:00 am), total time during which alcohol concentrations exceeded 15 ppm, range of the highest and lowest concentrations, and coefficient of variation of concentrations were analyzed using a linear regression model after log-transformation. Explanatory variables were the same as the above fixed effects. Standardized regression coefficients were also calculated where explanatory variables were standardized and response variables were not. A 2-sided P value <.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata, version 14.0 (StataCorp LLC) and SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

Results

Patient and sample characteristics are reported in Table 1. Twenty-eight premature infants were enrolled in this study (pre–ABD-PRAC, 17 [10 girls]; median gestational age at birth, 29.4 [IQR, 26.3-30.3] weeks; and post–ABD-PRAC, 11 [3 girls]; median gestational age at birth, 30.0 [IQR, 25.3-32.2] weeks). The overall median gestational age of the infants was 29.6 (IQR, 25.5-31.0 weeks) and the median birth weight was 1244 (IQR, 743-1413) g.

Alcohol was detected in all blood samples obtained from premature infants in the incubators (ethanol was the only alcohol detected on gas chromatography–coupled mass spectrometry analysis). Median BAC of infants in incubators was 7.0 (IQR, 5.4-9.3) mg/dL in 41 samples analyzed from 17 infants, which was higher than that of control cord blood samples exposed to NICU air (0.2 [IQR, 0.1-0.4] mg/dL; 3 samples from 3 infants) or to 100-ppm alcohol-containing air (0.5 [IQR, 0.3-0.8] mg/dL; 3 samples from 3 infants) (Figure 1A). Alcohol was continuously detected from individual infants at different CGAs (39 samples analyzed from 15 infants; Figure 1B and Table 1). The kinetics of alcohol concentrations in incubators revealed dynamic changes with multiple increases reaching high levels (Figure 1C; eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). The median alcohol concentration in incubators during the day (23.6 [IQR, 15.9-36.5] ppm) was higher than that during the night (13.2 [IQR, 8.9-19.4] ppm) (Figure 1D).

Alcohol concentration increases greater than 30 ppm were analyzed using the video recording data retrospectively (eMethods 4 in Supplement 1). Alcohol concentration increases were exclusively associated with medical care routines in incubators that were classified into 3 types according to the use of ABDs and median alcohol concentration in incubators as follows: medical care by staff using alcohol preps in incubators (77.2 [IQR, 50.4-117.4] ppm; n = 332), medical care by staff without using alcohol preps in incubators (37.1 [IQR, 32.7-46.2] ppm; n = 442), and skin-to-skin contact of family members, who performed hand disinfection using ABDs before contact with infants (58.9 [IQR, 41.1-85.5] ppm; n = 9) (eFigure 2 in Supplement 1). In experimental settings, lower evaporated alcohol concentration was associated with reduced time of alcohol prep kept inside incubators (eFigure 3A in Supplement 1). After disinfecting hands with ABDs, a lower evaporated alcohol concentration inside incubators was associated with sufficient drying time (eFigure 3B in Supplement 1) or by wearing medical gloves, which was associated with reduced alcohol concentration regardless of the drying time (eFigure 3C in Supplement 1). From these observations, we established ABD-PRAC to reduce the evaporation of alcohol in incubators.

After introduction of ABD-PRAC, the median BAC in premature infants decreased to 4.2 (IQR, 2.5-7.2) mg/dL in 27 samples analyzed from 11 infants (Figure 1A). Alcohol was still continuously detected in infants at different CGAs (25 samples analyzed from 9 infants) (Figure 1B). Kinetics of weekly and daily evaporated alcohol concentrations in incubators showed a decrease in peak values of individual increases and in time-weighted average values (Figure 1C; eFigure 1 in Supplement 1). Median alcohol concentration in incubators (a total of 378 days were analyzed) during the day was 9.4 (IQR, 6.0-16.0) ppm and during the night was 5.7 (IQR, 3.6-9.7) ppm (Figure 1D). The incidence of sepsis among infants and the monthly amount of alcohol prep use did not change substantially from pre- to post–ABD-PRAC introduction (Table 1; eFigure 4 in Supplement 1).

Linear mixed-effect model analysis (Table 2; eTable 1 in Supplement 1) showed that the explanatory variables most associated with decreased BAC, reported using regression coefficients, were introduction of ABD-PRAC at 22 weeks’ CGA (−8.3; 95% CI, −12.0 to −4.7), followed by mechanical ventilation (−4.8; 95% CI, −7.3 to −2.3), nasal continuous positive airway pressure (−3.3; 95% CI, −5.6 to −1.1), and CGA (−0.7; 95% CI, −1.2 to −0.3). An association was noted with CGA × ABD-PRAC for BAC (0.8; 95% CI, 0.2-1.3) but not the blood sampling route (−1.7; 95% CI, −3.9 to 0.5).

The association of 4 evaporated alcohol concentration measurements in incubators (ie, time-weighted average, total time of exposure to ≥15 ppm of alcohol, coefficient of variation, and range) with explanatory variables was analyzed. The ABD-PRAC was associated with a decrease in all measurements of evaporated alcohol concentration (Table 2; eTables 1, 2, and 3 in Supplement 1). An association was noted between CGA and decreased evaporated alcohol concentration range and coefficient of variation (Table 2; eTables 1, 2, and 3 in Supplement 1), and CGA × ABD-PRAC was associated with all measurements of evaporated alcohol concentration (Table 2; eTables 1, 2, and 3 in Supplement 1).

The kinetics of BAC during pre–ABD-PRAC were the highest in early CGAs, which gradually decreased toward later CGAs, although the concentration at post–ABD-PRAC remained constant at a lower level (Figure 2A). The kinetics of the evaporated alcohol concentration of time-weighted average and total time of exposure to 15 ppm or more of alcohol showed constant levels irrespective of the CGA, which was apparently lower in post–ABD-PRAC than in pre–ABD-PRAC (Figure 2B; eFigure 5B, eFigure 6A and B in Supplement 1). Coefficient of variation and range of evaporated alcohol concentration pre–ABD-PRAC were the highest in early CGAs, which gradually decreased toward later CGAs, although post–ABD-PRAC results remained constant at a lower level (Figure 2C; eFigure 5A, eFigure 6C and D in Supplement 1).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine neonatal alcohol exposure combined with BAC. Premature infants were exposed to alcohol evaporated from ABDs, and the alcohol was absorbed systemically via the airway and skin throughout the period of incubator management. The introduction of ABD-PRAC was associated with reduced alcohol concentration in neonatal incubators and BAC in premature infants.

In this study, we found sustained exposure of premature infants within incubators to alcohol. Perinatal alcohol exposure is hazardous and can affect the developing neurons by altering mitochondrial function,11 inducing apoptosis,12 inhibiting neurotransmitter N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors,13 and inhibiting migration,14,15 causing permanent neurodevelopmental abnormalities (ie, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders).7,16 Incidental alcohol concentrations in newborn infants that cause severe physical symptoms or death have been reported at BACs greater than or equal to 43 mg/dL.17,18 However, these studies observed the toxic effects caused by a single or intermittent high-concentration alcohol exposure. Therefore, the risk of intoxication cannot be applied to cases of sustained low-concentration exposure found in infants in incubators. Considering a BAC of 43 mg/dL17,18 as a lowest observed adverse effect level of acute alcohol exposure in infants, the lowest observed adverse effect level of chronic alcohol exposure in infants can be estimated by applying the uncertainty factor of 10 (ie, 4.3 mg/dL).19 In our study, the median BAC pre–ABD-PRAC (7.0 mg/dL) exceeded this value, while the median BAC post–ABD-PRAC was below this value (4.2 mg/dL) (Figure 1A). To ensure the safety of infants, no observed adverse effect level for sustained exposure to alcohol in premature infants should be established and used to assess risk, and BACs should be maintained at the lowest possible levels. In this study, we focused on ethanol, but another type of alcohol, isopropanol, commonly used in ABDs,20-22 shares strong structural and chemical similarity with ethanol23,24 and may need to be considered similarly.

The aim of ABD-PRAC was to decrease evaporated alcohol from ABDs inside neonatal incubators. The volatile organic compound sensors set inside the incubators provided real-time, accurate data regarding the overall exposure of premature infants to alcohol. Although these sensors can detect volatile organic compounds other than alcohol, they were sufficient to identify the cause of alcohol increase and evaluate its association with ABD-PRAC. Increased alcohol concentration in incubators due to evaporated alcohol from ABDs was only reported in experimental settings.10 Combined with video monitoring, we found that the periods of high alcohol levels in incubators were closely related to the medical procedures that required the use of ABDs. We also found that, in addition to sufficient drying time, wearing medical gloves after applying ABDs to the hands could prevent the evaporation of alcohol inside the incubator to an extent, regardless of the drying time. These findings are possibly useful for the management of infants in NICUs where emergent intervention is frequent.25 Reducing the duration of alcohol preps inside the incubator was also associated with lower alcohol evaporation, which was not associated with infection control in the NICU.

To further decrease the BAC in premature infants, we evaluated the factors that affected the absorption of alcohol. Penetration of alcohol through immature skin is considered the key factor for systemic absorption of alcohol.26 The ABD-PRAC and ventilatory support were associated with lower BACs (Table 2), indicating that, in addition to skin, airway is a key factor for alcohol absorption in premature infants in incubators. An interaction between CGA and ABD-PRAC was detected for BACs (Table 2), which was observed as a gradual decrease in BAC by CGA in pre–ABD-PRAC and as a low concentration in post–ABD-PRAC (Figure 2A). A gradual decrease in alcohol concentration pre–ABD-PRAC may be explained as maturation of skin with increasing CGA, which decreased alcohol penetration.27 However, alcohol was also detected in post–ABD-PRAC samples of infants with early CGAs, who similarly received mechanical ventilation or arterial catheterization (Figure 1B), and BAC did not decrease with increasing CGA. This suggests that factors other than skin barrier maturation,27 kidney excretion capability,28,29 and metabolic enzyme activity30 (which develops after birth regardless of postconceptional age) affect the absorption of alcohol. Analysis of alcohol concentration in neonatal incubators revealed a similar pattern pre- and post–ABD-PRAC in coefficient of variation and range to that of BAC, but not in time-weighted average or total time exposure to greater than or equal to 15 ppm of alcohol (Figure 2; eFigure 5 in Supplement 1). Coefficient of variation and range of results may be influenced by a frequent and rapid increase in alcohol concentration due to alcohol evaporation from medical care that requires the use of ABDs that gradually decreased in the later CGAs owing to the reduction in the need of frequent and intensive medical care, indicating infantile maturation. However, these results decreased even in early CGA post–ABD-PRAC (Figure 2; eFigure 5 in Supplement 1). The chemical properties of alcohol, including low boiling temperature and high water solubility,24 may have facilitated its rapid evaporation and immediate absorption through the premature skin, indicating that maturation of premature infants during neonatal incubation may not be sufficient to suppress the absorption of alcohol. Blood sampling method did not influence BACs of premature infants in incubators (Table 2; eTable 1 in Supplement 1), which may support the importance of the evaporated alcohol for absorption rather than liquid alcohol contained in alcohol preps that come into direct contact with the skin. Therefore, to decrease BACs, reducing the evaporated alcohol from ABDs in neonatal incubators may be the best approach.

Alcohol, chlorhexidine, and povidone-iodine are commonly used skin disinfectants for premature infants.20,31-34 They have broad antimicrobial activity but can be systemically absorbed through immature skin,35-39 which is of great concern in neonatal care.33-35,39-41 Acute cytotoxic effects, such as skin inflammation35,42-47 and hypothyroidism,48,49 has been reported; however, long-term effects in infants are unknown.36,41 In infants, the neurotoxic effects of these disinfectants, which has been reported in clinical studies of adults and in laboratory studies, is of great concern.50-54 With the high risk of developmental problems, including cognitive, behavioral, attentional, and socialization deficits, in preterm children,3,55-60 preventing the absorption of neurotoxic agents with interventions, such as our ABD-PRAC, seems necessary. Compared with alcohol, chlorhexidine stays longer on the skin, induces longer duration of antimicrobial activity,61 and induces gradual absorption that cannot be washed off,62 reaching its peak blood concentration after 2 to 3 days.36 These observations may reflect the chemical properties of chlorhexidine, which has a higher boiling temperature and lower water solubility than alcohol.63 Thus, the optimal disinfectants for use in the care of premature infants should be selected based on reliable antimicrobial activity required for medical procedures, while preventing toxic effects resulting from systemic absorption and with adequate consideration of their chemical properties.

Limitations

This study has limitations. First, it was not a randomized clinical trial. However, with this study, we showed alcohol absorption occurring during premature infant care, which is quite alarming. Second, it was a single institutional study using 2 types of neonatal incubators from a single manufacturer, which may not accurately represent the alcohol exposure of premature infants in other incubators. However, ABDs are used in NICUs worldwide, and increased evaporated alcohol concentrations were observed in neonatal incubators of other institutions (eFigure 7 in Supplement 1) and in other manufacturers.7 Therefore, increases in evaporated alcohol concentrations in neonatal incubators may be a universal occurrence. Third, we could not analyze maternal BACs. However, it is known that alcohol is detected at minimal levels in a small proportion of woman who are pregnant in Japan.64

Conclusions

In this study, alcohol evaporated from ABDs was absorbed by premature infants inside incubators. The ABD-PRAC was associated with lower BACs in infants, and is a simple and safe procedure that can be introduced in any NICU. The sustained infantile exposure to alcohol cannot be overlooked, and further studies of its toxic effects are warranted.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: January 10, 2023.

Published: February 24, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0691

Correction: This article was corrected on March 21, 2023, to fix a grant number in Funding/Support.

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2023 Hitaka D et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Authors: Shoji F. Nakayama, MD, PhD, Health and Environmental Risk Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan (fabre@nies.go.jp); Satoshi Fujiyama, MD, PhD, Department of Pediatrics, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8576, Japan (fujiyama.satoshi.cw@ms.hosp.tsukuba.ac.jp).

Author Contributions: Drs Hitaka and Fujiyama are co–first authors, had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Hitaka, Fujiyama, Hamada, Miyazono, Takada.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hitaka, Fujiyama, Nishihama, Ishii, Hoshino, Nakayama, Takada.

Drafting of the manuscript: Hitaka, Fujiyama, Nishihama, Ishii, Hamada, Nakayama, Takada.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Fujiyama, Nishihama, Hoshino, Miyazono, Nakayama, Takada.

Statistical analysis: Hitaka, Ishii, Nakayama, Takada.

Obtained funding: Hitaka, Fujiyama.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Hitaka, Nishihama, Hamada, Nakayama, Takada.

Supervision: Hitaka, Fujiyama, Hoshino, Miyazono, Nakayama, Takada.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Hitaka reporting holding patents for JP7162315B,JP7154519B, and JP7188720B, and patents pending for JP2022083367A, JP2022083369A, JP2022083364A, JP2022083366A, and JP2022173640A. Dr Fujiyama reported holding patents for JP7162315B, JP7154519B, and JP7188720B, and patents pending for JP2022083367A, JP2022083369A, JP2022083364A, JP2022083366A, and JP2022173640A. Dr Ishii reported holding a patent for JP7162315B and a patent pending for JP2022083367A. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported under collaborative research between New Cosmos Electric Co, Ltd and University of Tsukuba and by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development under grant JP 22ym0126803.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

Additional Contributions: We thank Tsukuba Clinical Research and Development Organization for their support in carrying out this clinical study. Hirokazu Akahoshi (Tsukuba University Hospital) provided support in collecting data and helping with the experiments. Chieko Hirosawa and Yuka Yoshikawa provided secretarial assistance and Mayumi Honda and Ikuko Nakamura, PhD, provided technical assistance. No financial compensation was provided.

Additional Information: New Cosmos Electric Co Ltd provided the volatile organic compound sensors and extracted the data from volatile organic compound sensors.

References
1.
Guidelines  WHO; Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee.  WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. World Health Organization; 2009.
2.
Sampah  MES, Hackam  DJ.  Prenatal immunity and influences on necrotizing enterocolitis and associated neonatal disorders.   Front Immunol. 2021;12:650709. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.650709 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Bell  EF, Hintz  SR, Hansen  NI,  et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network.  Mortality, in-hospital morbidity, care practices, and 2-year outcomes for extremely preterm infants in the US, 2013-2018.   JAMA. 2022;327(3):248-263. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.23580 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
van Vliet  EO, de Kieviet  JF, Oosterlaan  J, van Elburg  RM.  Perinatal infections and neurodevelopmental outcome in very preterm and very low-birth-weight infants: a meta-analysis.   JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(7):662-668. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1199 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Ericson  JE, Popoola  VO, Smith  PB,  et al.  Burden of invasive Staphylococcus aureus infections in hospitalized infants.   JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(12):1105-1111. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2380 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Denny  L, Coles  S, Blitz  R.  Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.   Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(8):515-522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Sokol  RJ, Delaney-Black  V, Nordstrom  B.  Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.   JAMA. 2003;290(22):2996-2999. doi:10.1001/jama.290.22.2996 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Muggli  E, Matthews  H, Penington  A,  et al.  Association between prenatal alcohol exposure and craniofacial shape of children at 12 months of age.   JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(8):771-780. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0778 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Baker  JP.  The incubator and the medical discovery of the premature infant.   J Perinatol. 2000;20(5):321-328. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7200377 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Hsieh  S, Sapkota  A, Wood  R, Bearer  C, Kapoor  S.  Neonatal ethanol exposure from ethanol-based hand sanitisers in isolettes.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103(1):F55-F58. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-311959 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Chu  J, Tong  M, de la Monte  SM.  Chronic ethanol exposure causes mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in immature central nervous system neurons.   Acta Neuropathol. 2007;113(6):659-673. doi:10.1007/s00401-007-0199-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Soleimani  E, Goudarzi  I, Abrari  K, Lashkarbolouki  T.  The combined effects of developmental lead and ethanol exposure on hippocampus dependent spatial learning and memory in rats: role of oxidative stress.   Food Chem Toxicol. 2016;96:263-272. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2016.07.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Bird  CW, Barber  MJ, Post  HR,  et al.  Neonatal ethanol exposure triggers apoptosis in the murine retrosplenial cortex: role of inhibition of NMDA receptor-driven action potential firing.   Neuropharmacology. 2020;162:107837. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.107837 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Clarren  SK, Alvord  EC  Jr, Sumi  SM, Streissguth  AP, Smith  DW.  Brain malformations related to prenatal exposure to ethanol.   J Pediatr. 1978;92(1):64-67. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(78)80072-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Komada  M, Hara  N, Kawachi  S,  et al.  Mechanisms underlying neuro-inflammation and neurodevelopmental toxicity in the mouse neocortex following prenatal exposure to ethanol.   Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):4934. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04289-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Hoyme  HE, Kalberg  WO, Elliott  AJ,  et al.  Updated clinical guidelines for diagnosing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.   Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20154256. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-4256 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wu  CT, Hsia  SH, Chen  CL, Lee  HY.  Acute fatal alcohol intoxication in a 3-day-old neonate.   Pediatr Neonatol. 2017;58(3):278-280. doi:10.1016/j.pedneo.2015.11.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Zaitsu  M, Inada  Y, Tashiro  K,  et al.  Acute alcohol intoxication in a 15-day-old neonate.   Pediatr Int. 2013;55(6):792-794. doi:10.1111/ped.12134 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
US Environmental Protection Agency. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes. 2002. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/rfd-final.pdf
20.
Shah  D, Tracy  M.  Skin antisepsis survey in Australia-New Zealand neonatal nurseries.   J Paediatr Child Health. 2013;49(7):601-602. doi:10.1111/jpc.12274 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
McCord  H, Fieldhouse  E, El-Naggar  W.  Current practices of antiseptic use in Canadian neonatal intensive care units.   Am J Perinatol. 2019;36(2):141-147. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1661406 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Beekman  K, Steward  D.  Chlorhexidine gluconate utilization for infection prevention in the NICU: a survey of current practice.   Adv Neonatal Care. 2020;20(1):38-47. doi:10.1097/ANC.0000000000000658 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Isopropyl alcohol. Pubchem. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/3776
24.
Ethanol Pubchem. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethanol
25.
Kaufman  DA, Blackman  A, Conaway  MR, Sinkin  RA.  Nonsterile glove use in addition to hand hygiene to prevent late-onset infection in preterm infants: randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(10):909-916. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.953 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Harpin  VA, Rutter  N.  Barrier properties of the newborn infant’s skin.   J Pediatr. 1983;102(3):419-425. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(83)80669-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Kalia  YN, Nonato  LB, Lund  CH, Guy  RH.  Development of skin barrier function in premature infants.   J Invest Dermatol. 1998;111(2):320-326. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1747.1998.00289.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Bueva  A, Guignard  JP.  Renal function in preterm neonates.   Pediatr Res. 1994;36(5):572-577. doi:10.1203/00006450-199411000-00005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Moltu  SJ, Sachse  D, Blakstad  EW,  et al.  Urinary metabolite profiles in premature infants show early postnatal metabolic adaptation and maturation.   Nutrients. 2014;6(5):1913-1930. doi:10.3390/nu6051913 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Allegaert  K, Mian  P, van den Anker  JN.  Developmental pharmacokinetics in neonates: maturational changes and beyond.   Curr Pharm Des. 2017;23(38):5769-5778. doi:10.2174/1381612823666170926121124 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Fraser  C, Harron  K, Dalton  L, Gilbert  R, Oddie  SJ, Study  P; PREVAIL Study.  Variation in infection prevention practices for peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a survey of neonatal units in England and Wales.   PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0204894. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204894 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Datta  MK, Clarke  P.  Current practices in skin antisepsis for central venous catheterisation in UK tertiary-level neonatal units.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93(4):F328. doi:10.1136/adc.2008.137430 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Johnson  J, Bracken  R, Tamma  PD, Aucott  SW, Bearer  C, Milstone  AM.  Trends in chlorhexidine use in US neonatal intensive care units: results from a follow-up national survey.   Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(9):1116-1118. doi:10.1017/ice.2016.125 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Heron  TJ, Faraday  CM, Clarke  P.  The hidden harms of Matching Michigan.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013;98(5):F466-F467. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-304378 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Sathiyamurthy  S, Banerjee  J, Godambe  SV.  Antiseptic use in the neonatal intensive care unit—a dilemma in clinical practice: an evidence based review.   World J Clin Pediatr. 2016;5(2):159-171. doi:10.5409/wjcp.v5.i2.159 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Chapman  AK, Aucott  SW, Gilmore  MM, Advani  S, Clarke  W, Milstone  AM.  Absorption and tolerability of aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate used for skin antisepsis prior to catheter insertion in preterm neonates.   J Perinatol. 2013;33(10):768-771. doi:10.1038/jp.2013.61 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Cowen  J, Ellis  SH, McAinsh  J.  Absorption of chlorhexidine from the intact skin of newborn infants.   Arch Dis Child. 1979;54(5):379-383. doi:10.1136/adc.54.5.379 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Aggett  PJ, Cooper  LV, Ellis  SH, McAinsh  J.  Percutaneous absorption of chlorhexidine in neonatal cord care.   Arch Dis Child. 1981;56(11):878-880. doi:10.1136/adc.56.11.878 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Chapman  AK, Aucott  SW, Milstone  AM.  Safety of chlorhexidine gluconate used for skin antisepsis in the preterm infant.   J Perinatol. 2012;32(1):4-9. doi:10.1038/jp.2011.148 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Tamma  PD, Aucott  SW, Milstone  AM.  Chlorhexidine use in the neonatal intensive care unit: results from a national survey.   Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(8):846-849. doi:10.1086/655017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Ponnusamy  V, Venkatesh  V, Clarke  P.  Skin antisepsis in the neonate: what should we use?   Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2014;27(3):244-250. doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000064 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Watkins  AM, Keogh  EJ.  Alcohol burns in the neonate.   J Paediatr Child Health. 1992;28(4):306-308. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.1992.tb02673.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Vanzi  V, Pitaro  R.  Skin injuries and chlorhexidine gluconate-based antisepsis in early premature infants: a case report and review of the literature.   J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2018;32(4):341-350. doi:10.1097/JPN.0000000000000334 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Mannan  K, Chow  P, Lissauer  T, Godambe  S.  Mistaken identity of skin cleansing solution leading to extensive chemical burns in an extremely preterm infant.   Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(10):1536-1537. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00376.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Bringué Espuny  X, Soria  X, Solé  E,  et al.  Chlorhexidine-methanol burns in two extreme preterm newborns.   Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27(6):676-678. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2010.01178.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Reynolds  PR, Banerjee  S, Meek  JH.  Alcohol burns in extremely low birthweight infants: still occurring.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(1):F10. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.054338 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Lashkari  HP, Chow  P, Godambe  S.  Aqueous 2% chlorhexidine-induced chemical burns in an extremely premature infant.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012;97(1):F64. doi:10.1136/adc.2011.215145 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Chabrolle  JP, Rossier  A.  Goitre and hypothyroidism in the newborn after cutaneous absorption of iodine.   Arch Dis Child. 1978;53(6):495-498. doi:10.1136/adc.53.6.495 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Aitken  J, Williams  FL.  A systematic review of thyroid dysfunction in preterm neonates exposed to topical iodine.   Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014;99(1):F21-F28. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-303799 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Lai  P, Coulson  C, Pothier  DD, Rutka  J.  Chlorhexidine ototoxicity in ear surgery, part 1: review of the literature.   J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;40(6):437-440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Milstone  AM, Bamford  P, Aucott  SW, Tang  N, White  KR, Bearer  CF.  Chlorhexidine inhibits L1 cell adhesion molecule-mediated neurite outgrowth in vitro.   Pediatr Res. 2014;75(1-1):8-13. doi:10.1038/pr.2013.175 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Goldschmidt  P, Cogen  R, Taubman  S.  Cytopathologic effects of chlorhexidine on human cells.   J Periodontol. 1977;48(4):212-215. doi:10.1902/jop.1977.48.4.212 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Doan  L, Piskoun  B, Rosenberg  AD, Blanck  TJ, Phillips  MS, Xu  F.  In vitro antiseptic effects on viability of neuronal and Schwann cells.   Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012;37(2):131-138. doi:10.1097/AAP.0b013e31823cdd96 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Li  SH, Wang  Y, Gao  HB, Zhao  K, Hou  YC, Sun  W.  Experimental study on the toxicity of povidone-iodine solution in brain tissues of rabbits.   Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(9):14863-14870.PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Volpe  JJ.  Brain injury in premature infants: a complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances.   Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(1):110-124. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70294-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Bhutta  AT, Cleves  MA, Casey  PH, Cradock  MM, Anand  KJ.  Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis.   JAMA. 2002;288(6):728-737. doi:10.1001/jama.288.6.728 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Eves  R, Mendonça  M, Baumann  N,  et al.  Association of very preterm birth or very low birth weight with intelligence in adulthood: an individual participant data meta-analysis.   JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(8):e211058. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.1058 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Saigal  S, Day  KL, Van Lieshout  RJ, Schmidt  LA, Morrison  KM, Boyle  MH.  Health, wealth, social integration, and sexuality of extremely low-birth-weight prematurely born adults in the fourth decade of life.   JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(7):678-686. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0289 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Bolk  J, Farooqi  A, Hafström  M, Åden  U, Serenius  F.  Developmental coordination disorder and its association with developmental comorbidities at 6.5 years in apparently healthy children born extremely preterm.   JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(8):765-774. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1394 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Kinney  HC.  The encephalopathy of prematurity: one pediatric neuropathologist’s perspective.   Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2009;16(4):179-190. doi:10.1016/j.spen.2009.09.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Lim  KS, Kam  PC.  Chlorhexidine–pharmacology and clinical applications.   Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008;36(4):502-512. doi:10.1177/0310057X0803600404 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Bashir  MH, Hollingsworth  A, Schwab  D,  et al.  Ex vivo and in vivo evaluation of residual chlorhexidine gluconate on skin following repetitive exposure to saline and wiping with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate/70% isopropyl alcohol pre-operative skin preparations.   J Hosp Infect. 2019;102(3):256-261. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2018.10.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
PubChem. Chlorhexidine. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9552079
64.
Cho  K, Kobayashi  S, Araki  A,  et al; Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group.  Prenatal alcohol exposure and adverse fetal growth restriction: findings from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study.   Pediatr Res. 2022;92(1):291-298. doi:10.1038/s41390-021-01595-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×